NOMENCLATURE OF THE TEASEL. 3 
DiPsACUS FULLONUM, Persoon, Syn. i. 119 (1805). 
eller, Fl. Wirceb. i. 161 (1810). 
^. Ait. f. Kew. i. 223 (181 Des 
S. F. Gray, Nat. Arr. ii. 425 (1821). 
Roehl. Deutsch. FI. i. 737 (1823). 
Coult. Mem. Genev. 22 (1823). 
Spreng. Syst. i. 377 (1825). 
Host. Fl. Austr. i. 184 (1827). 
Duby, Bot. Gall. i. 258 (1828). 
DC. Prodr. iv. 645 (1830). 
Steud. Nom. i. 518 (1840). 
Ledeb. Fl. Ross. ii. 395 (1844). 
Babington, Manual, 158 (1851). 
Bentham, Handb. 231 (1866). 
PEL EEL ELE UI 
ono T 
The above list of authors is, I say, very far from complete, 
and only representative of that great majority who, during 
the century im mediately succeeding the publications of Lin- 
nsus and of Miller, have found it necessary to reckon the 
nomenclature of the common Teasels as beginning with 
Miller. 
The other species, namely the type of Linnzus' D. fullo- 
mum,is received by the same set of authors—that is, by 
almost everybody—under the name 
DIPSACUS SILVESTRIS, Mill. Dict. (1768). 
A question will no doubt here arise in the minds of sev- 
eral readers of this paper, as to why Linnzus’ type of his - 
own D. fullonum should not bear the name he gaveit. Why, 
in other words, should not one write D. fullonum, L., instead 
of D. silvestris, Mill., and then for the other species proceed 
to write D. sativus (L.)—instead of D. fullonum, Mill.—where 
Linnzus put it D. fullonum, var. sativus? This is exactly 
the procedure which our so-called Rochester Code requires. 
Why, in the Check List, has not this been done? Why, in 
that document, is Linnzeus so completely falsified as to his 
